Marko Kloos
Inactive
We've ammended that definition, and have defined more clearly what "win" is, and we are working towards that end.
Do share. What's the current definition of "win"?
We've ammended that definition, and have defined more clearly what "win" is, and we are working towards that end.
In actual fact, Ron Paul took the rest of the candidates to the woodshed on foreign policy, showing them all to be feckless warmongers in comparison to himself.
Economic Ignorance and the Presidency
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 12:16 PM
The dumbfounded looks of mystification on the faces of The Five Stooges in response to Ron Paul's learned and lucid expositions on economic policy during last night's debate reminded me of something my old friend Murray Weidenbaum once said. Murray was the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers in the first two years of the Reagan administration. He once told me that, although the job sounds very high falutin, what it largely involved was explaining college freshman-level economics to the president and cabinet members so that they wouldn't do anything too stupid and damaging to the whole country.
Ron Paul, of course, could be his own "chairman" of the council of economic advisers.
Lack of charisma is just about the last thing we Americans should use to judge a candidate, used car salesmen have charisma, as do many dictators world wide.
Do share. What's the current definition of "win"?
Current U.S. strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror. The building of a strong strategic partnership with the Iraqi Government will be an important part of the effort to achieve this end state, which remains a long-term goal, and requires the application of all elements of national power, including especially diplomatic, economic, and political power.
(emphasis by me)What we want, or should want, is a man with dedication to prinicples. Principles that are demonstrated by a record in congress, say about 20 years duration, one that is consistent and lawful.
Isn't it funny how the Paulestinians set the requirements for President around the Mad Doctor's "qualifications"?
Of course, we all can agree on the fact that a good percentage of his debate text votes come from a lot of democrats that hate the republican status quo so much that they will reach out to any candidate that agrees to pull out of Iraq.
I think you're correct. Ron Paul will capture the Reagan Democrats that were so important in both Reagan victories. None of the other candidates running as Republicans will be able to do that.Right now the republicans do not have enough support from their own disgruntled conservative base to defeat the Obama/Hillary machine in November. What they need to do is to stand behind a candidate like Ron Paul that can take enough votes away from the democrats to ensure a victory in November. The republicans will not win by pushing the "frontrunners" that they are pushing now. The ones the RNC are trying to push now are the ones that will keep the "great military industrial complex" running on and on because they have a vested intrest in it. If they can put their own greed aside and get behind Ron Paul, they can defeat the gun-grabbing democrats in November.
I agree that he has vigorously and consistently defended the Constitution. There can be no disputing his integrity in that matter.
cool hand luke: aah, those fine conspiracy theories of a kind.. Got to love them.